Announcements about the reduction of the number of State officials move and not look: after be mounted up to 40,000, the number of retirement without replacement fell less than 23,000; the magic percentage a recruitment for two departures remains a goal, but the end of the quinquennium. The main reason of this revision is the desire not to raise too hard conflict with public service unions. But there are two other important reasons: firstly, downsizing prepare, and these preliminary work, including at the National Education (a large half of officials) are probably not be completed. on the other hand, and this will be the theme of this article, the budgetary effects of downsizing in the public service of the State are, in the short term, less that one might think at first glance.
In an ordinary business, if part of the staff is underemployed, or subcontractors can do the work at a lower cost, reduce the workforce to greatly improve the accounts. But the State is not one business like any other: by not replacing part of his servants to retirement, it is much less savings would that not make PSA or Casino. And, when it increased its staff, budget expenditures are less outlay than a business that would similarly. Where this comes from it
The day where an employee share retirement without be replaced, his employer no longer has to pay his gross salary or related contributions. Conducted economy is therefore equal to its "superbrut" salary or total cost to the employer. The State is not well: apart from the newly created additional pension fund, there are no officials of the State Pension Fund, so that pension contributions (both wage that employers) listed on their ballots of pay are fictitious. How would the State cease these contributions since he has never paid However, it continues to pay the pensions of his former servants: expenditure continues without reducing no, since it was not bound, if it is sham, officials in active employment.
Look at the bulletin of pay of a civil servant with the average gross salary, either in sales round 2.500 euros: it seems to cost the State 4.250 euro sum in the box "cost total employer" said newsletter. In reality, the State disburses or pay retirement contributions (7.85 of the gross, not quite EUR 200 in our example), or the employer contribution (currently 50,74 of the gross, i.e. near 1.270 euro). In fact, the teacher costs 1.460 euros less that does announces it its pay bulletin: 2.790 euros instead of 4.250 euro. If his budget job disappears (reduction of staff), the annual budget did not win is 51,000 euros (12 times the "cost total employer" included on the ballot), but only 33.480 euros: that would be actually paid for the benefit of a person in the service, net wage and payments to social welfare agencies.
This phenomenon is entirely due to the officials of the State pension system. A classical business is not in charge of the retirement of its former employees; the State, if. Suppose that an artisan way the retire from its single employee and does not replace: now there more there is to be paid to pension funds, its staff costs disappear. But if the State lost one stroke all its active officials, its expenditures for retirement would not decline to a single penny! The line "contribution pension civilian employer" Payroll newsletter was created by mimicry; filled by multiplying the gross salary by the percentage obtained by dividing the total expenditure of civil pension by the sum of the gross salaries of all civil servants, it is that muddying. If the State a year to reduce the number of officials, modify the total expenditure of pension being out of his reach, there is simply increased automatic (arithmetic) the premium rate employer fictitious.
In the current state of things, the State has therefore no budget concern as a company to reduce its workforce. Symmetrically, budget brake to the increase in enrolment is lower: creations of position do translate in the immediate future by no increase in pension expenditure, so that the budget does not increase the "cost total employer" indicated on the ballot papers of new officials, but only two-thirds (for civil servants) or pay in half (for military). In fact, when the State increases its staff, the increase in budgetary expenditure resulting in immediate underestimates the cost of the operation strongly: the increase in expenses that need to take forty years later is forgotten. Symmetrically, when the State reduces its workforce, to a third party it reduces spending for fiscal years between 2045 and 2080, which is very meritorious, but little incentive.
If we want State leaders are encouraged to save the human resource and to maximize the effectiveness of the services in the same way as business leaders, major reforms are needed. The most recommendable is the pensions: merge all systems into one, to which officials cotiseraient as other workers, would radically solve the problem. Should add a reform of the public accounting leading to cover pension commitments that the State taking to each official whenever it validates a quarter for his retirement. The budget of each mission and program would account allocations to the provisions included staff costs, which would establish the incentive to save staff at a nearby level of what exists in the business.